tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post2511448332516248214..comments2024-03-01T21:01:15.174-06:00Comments on Biblical Christianity: Book review: The Dispensational-Covenantal Rift The Fissuring of American Evangelical Theology from 1936 to 1944, by R. Todd MangumDJPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-4440810581017542462011-06-11T11:24:33.324-05:002011-06-11T11:24:33.324-05:00I didn't know you couldn't serve as an eld...I didn't know you couldn't serve as an elder or a pastor in the Presbyterian church if you were a dispensationalist. Wow.CRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01912897040503058967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-1077003434975879552010-03-18T20:38:23.443-05:002010-03-18T20:38:23.443-05:00A fairly typical Presbyterian move when debating t...A fairly typical Presbyterian move when debating the baptism issue is to call Baptists dispensational, even if the Baptist in question is covenantal. <br /><br />However, a few years ago, I realized that many and perhaps most of the prominent early promoters of dispensationalism in the USA were members or ministers in paedobaptist churches. This includes Scofield, Chafer, James Brookes, James M. Gray, and W.H. Griffith Thomas, just to name a few.Chris Poehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16397031134532565539noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-47579720192550175742010-03-18T20:29:05.788-05:002010-03-18T20:29:05.788-05:00Dan,
Thanks for this review. I recently saw this...Dan,<br /><br />Thanks for this review. I recently saw this book on Amazon and hope to get it eventually. Dr. Mangum has written a book on the history and impact of the Scofield Reference Bible as well. <br /><br />Another example of the rupture is the split between the premil friendly (and even Scofield Bible friendly) Bible Presbyterian Church and the much more thoroughgoing confessional Reformed Orthodox Presbyterian Church in 1937, just after their split from the PCUSA. There were other issues as well, including use of beverage alcohol. <br /><br />Several here have written that S. Lewis Johnson was always a Calvinist i.e. a 5 pointer. That's not the case. I think this may be due to the fact that Dr. Johnson was a Presbyterian in his formative years. But Presbyterianism in the mid 20th century (other than smaller denominations like the OPC) did not necessarily equate with Five Point Calvinism. This was the case even with regard to conservatives in the old Southern Presbyterian Church (PCUS) among whom Billy Graham tended to be very popular. <br /><br />Dr. Johnson wasn't persuaded of Particular Redemption until the early 1970's (I believe it was) and that view eventually led to him having to leave Dallas Seminary a few years later. Prior to that he held to the more or less Amryaldian view that was typical of DTS at that time. He discusses it in this series: http://sljinstitute.net/sermons/doctrine/modcalvinism/modcalvinism_master.html<br /><br />I think Dr. Johnson addressed his leaving DTS in one of the messages in the "Divine Purpose" series as well.<br /><br />I am not aware of anyone in the PCUS being defrocked or suspended over dispensationalism, although the ruling in 1944 certainly exacerbated things. (Of course this is one reason I want to read the book in question.) I think Chafer had hoped for DTS graduates to enter mainline denominations like the PCUS and work to reform them from within. (I have always wondered to what extent that ruling was responsible for the growth of the independent Bible church movement.) <br /><br />To my knowledge Chafer remained a Presbyterian until his death. Also, it was not a given that pastors in the PCUS were thoroughgoing Calvinists either. There were a few dispensationalists here and there in the early years of the PCA as well. <br /><br />James Montgomery Boice began as a dispensationalist and early in his ministry published a book along those lines, but later adopted historic premil views.Chris Poehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16397031134532565539noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-68588073863797574642010-03-18T17:47:46.096-05:002010-03-18T17:47:46.096-05:00Yes sir, though I've read that Barnhouse "...Yes sir, though I've read that Barnhouse "went over the wall" in later years.<br /><br /><b>AJLin</b> — for Dallas.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-90795098388486467532010-03-18T16:38:23.881-05:002010-03-18T16:38:23.881-05:00Good post. You can be a Calvinist and a dispensati...Good post. You can be a Calvinist and a dispensationalist: Donald Grey Barnhouse, Bruce Dunn, and John MacArthur for example.Dennis Thurmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03441516250465226543noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-73056697190657096672010-03-17T22:45:20.911-05:002010-03-17T22:45:20.911-05:00For what school was this dissertation written?For what school was this dissertation written?Andrew Lindseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06543222209236040112noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-22309074764283531412010-03-16T15:39:08.800-05:002010-03-16T15:39:08.800-05:00One thing that I found interesting was when R. Sco...One thing that I found interesting was when R. Scott Clark started saying how Reformed Baptists aren't really Reformed, James White <a href="http://aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3651" rel="nofollow">responded</a> by defending the label for those who didn't embrace paedobaptism.<br /><br />It struck me that everything he said in his "final thought" could be said by a Calvidispy to him in defense of our being Reformed as well. Especially this part:<br /><br /><i>You not only accept the five points, you accept the consistent exegesis and hermeneutics, let alone the view of an inspired, authoritative, consistent, sufficient Word from God, that leads to those five points</i>.<br /><br />And of course, we'd want to add, "...that also leads to understanding a distinction between Israel and the Church."<br /><br />So yeah.Mike Riccardihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06748453197783538367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-29370715632363725592010-03-16T15:26:36.048-05:002010-03-16T15:26:36.048-05:00Oh, dude, I would love to do that. But I would nee...Oh, dude, I would <i>love</i> to do that. But I would need so much time to do research, get my own head together, get up to date on all the lit that's come out... I wish one of the gazillions of better men would do it.<br /><br />Click on the dispensationalism tag for this post. I've done other posts, and some of them have very, heh, lively metas.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-79274040531344319562010-03-16T15:13:31.335-05:002010-03-16T15:13:31.335-05:00Thanks, DJP. My wife and I are continually trying...Thanks, DJP. My wife and I are continually trying to figure this whole mess out. I would like to better understand both Dispensationalism and the Covenental thing and the differences between the two. I would like to find one resource and from your review, I don't think this is it. Do you have a recommendation? If not, I think this might make a good second book for you...NewManNoggshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09953903636457421673noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-1516225201022913662010-03-16T14:47:38.372-05:002010-03-16T14:47:38.372-05:00Dan,
Thank you for the heads up on this book. I r...Dan,<br /><br />Thank you for the heads up on this book. I remember back in January when you were requesting lists for "Top 10" items. I wrote "The top 10 passages that non-dispys get wrong in order to refute dispensationalism" or something like that. The reason: I'm a very happy reformed soteriologist AND a dispensationalist AND have no tension with that AT ALL because I'm a historical-grammatical exegete in all genres. <br /><br />But I did not know that Dallas had a strong Presbyterian presence, so that, in and of itself, makes it worth reading. And I love reading older BibSac articles in Libronix.<br /><br />And, not because I'm a presbyterian, but I am a presbyter.<br /><br />So, I'm looking forward to a good read here.<br /><br />Thanks again.Kirbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04036811702165687007noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-1780183067298610252010-03-16T12:27:23.729-05:002010-03-16T12:27:23.729-05:00I've been enjoying listening to S. Lewis Johns...I've been enjoying listening to S. Lewis Johnson sermons online, and from what he says there, he was raised Presbyterian, but by the time of his preaching he was clearly Calvinist and Baptist.<br /><br />And I agree, Fred, it comes down to the hermeneutics -- as I discovered myself while studying the subject; and creation is another related issue of inconsistent hermeneutics. When all I knew was the standard amillennial, partial-preterist stuff, I learned that my pastor rejects biblical creation -- and that alone was enough reason to start looking elsewhere for good Bible teaching, and so from that I learned of John MacArthur and from that to other good Calvinist, dispensational teachers. My first real study of disp. eschatology (a 112-part series from McClarty) didn't directly address the underlying hermeneutic, but after listening to many sessions, at one point it all suddenly "clicked" that the real issue is how we interpret the scriptures -- which directly related back to my original problem with the pastor who insists on Hugh Ross creation and Genesis 1 as poetry (and I realized that this pastor at least is consistent in his approach to both past and future).Lynda Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01755739519555633760noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-29048197510432930682010-03-16T09:26:39.069-05:002010-03-16T09:26:39.069-05:00Oh, I think you're absolutely right, Fred.
As...Oh, I think you're absolutely right, Fred.<br /><br />As I've often said: if these good brothers "did" John 1 or Romans 3 the way they "do" Isaiah 2 or Revelation 20, they'd be New Agers, universalists, or worse. Thank God they don't.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-85327652399944471592010-03-16T09:22:23.791-05:002010-03-16T09:22:23.791-05:00The more and more I write on this subject for my o...The more and more I write on this subject for my own blog, the more I am convinced the hermeneutics one brings to the relevant texts plays a major part in this dispute. <br /><br />I am all the time befuddled how those who claim to see the importance of historical-grammatical hermeneutics when it comes to preaching and teaching the whole counsel of God so easily derail when they come to prophetic passages. Their exegesis is precise and detailed when defending the particular redemption of Christ say for example in John 6 and John 10 and the Calvinist defenders will insist that specific rules of exegesis must be followed to handle the Word of God accurately. James White has a whole chapter devoted to the subject in his book on "Scripture Alone." But as soon as they reach the book of Revelation, those rules apparently no longer apply because Revelation, or Daniel, or Ezekiel are "prophecy" and an entirely new set of rules must be applied in order to ascertain what Ezekiel and John so clearly tell me with the application of the normal, historical grammatical exegesis I was using over in 1 Timothy 3. <br /><br />If you want to hear an example of what I mean by this, you should take a listen to James White debate Harold Camping on the Iron Sharpens Iron show from last year. Where as White is correct in refuting Camping's loopy exegesis when it comes to his prophetic date settings for the end of the world, Camping employs the same "It's symbolism" and "It's types" and "The Bible is full of symbols pointing to greater reality" argumentation I hear my CT friends like Sam Waldron utilize when they discuss prophetic portions of scripture.Fred Butlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16025967176465685306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-16292856546980637852010-03-16T09:12:00.145-05:002010-03-16T09:12:00.145-05:00LOL, what a cool coincidence! I've actually ha...LOL, what a cool coincidence! I've actually had this in draft status for some time, just needing to finish it up.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-91584859545000561932010-03-16T09:10:53.404-05:002010-03-16T09:10:53.404-05:00Dan, this is great. I am reading this book right ...Dan, this is great. I am reading this book right now. It was recommended to me by Ben Wright of Paleoevangelical fame. I was asking him about a bigger issue, and he told me about this book.<br /><br />I am very fascinated by this book. I was about to email you this morning to see if you had heard of it when I saw this as the cover story. Nice work.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-90358194645605150892010-03-16T08:18:44.740-05:002010-03-16T08:18:44.740-05:00I must admit to having wondered about this. I know...I must admit to having wondered about this. I know that many of the early Dispensationalists came out of the Calvinist camp, and that many, such as S. Lewis Johnson, remained Calvinist in their soteriology.<br /><br />Like you, I've never seen any disagreement between Dispensational ecclesiology and eschatology and Calvinist soteriology. In fact, they seem to fit together quite nicely!<br /><br /><i>~Squirrel</i>The Squirrelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14082708506676251152noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-87821094521463793632010-03-16T07:00:02.234-05:002010-03-16T07:00:02.234-05:00I went to Talbot and learned dispensationalism qui...I went to Talbot and learned dispensationalism quite well. I later considered a doctoral program at Westminster, and when I was doing the research for it I realized that the dispensational and reformed camps were kissing cousins having a spat. One example was a journal article on a disputed topic (Jesus' "descent into hell") listing "all the views" -- except for the best solution, which was listed in a journal from the other camp. This saddened me. The other view could have been discovered simply by looking at the other journal. This is childish and damaging. The post moderns would call it "inauthentic." The only valid Biblical definition for a "camp" is regeneration and faith--everything else is a faction.<br />- Dave LinnDave Linnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04379688294296325919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-27393193295185383282010-03-16T06:21:30.121-05:002010-03-16T06:21:30.121-05:00This is really interesting to me. My pastor gradu...This is really interesting to me. My pastor graduated from Dallas in the early 80's. I was talking with him once of my love of listening to S. Lewis Johnson's sermons online. He made a comment that it was too bad that Johnson's theology changed, i.e. that he had "become" Presbyterian. I didn't say anything, though. I already knew that Johnson had always been Calvinist. But that is the perception. And yes, he is very suspicious of Presbyterians, and when he says "reformed" from the pulpit, it is not in a positive light.Kimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02288648996304246570noreply@blogger.com